worth having a look at some of the things on this site. interesting applications
http://www.intel.com/healthcare/index.htm?iid=homepage+tech_health
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Strange Maps
The strange maps blog - - is one of the most addictive sites I've come across in a while. Of particular interest to bloggers and blog readers might be :
US States renamed for countries with similar GDPs
and the follow up (or rather follow-ups)
and the Subway Map of Web Trends
US States renamed for countries with similar GDPs
and the follow up (or rather follow-ups)
and the Subway Map of Web Trends
Anger as gaping gulf in wealth revealed
The front page of today's Irish Independent is running with the story: "Anger as gaping gulf in wealth revealed".
The story says there is "a new report from the Bank of Ireland (which) outlined how we (Ireland) now boast the second highest rate of millionaires in the world. Around 33,000 people are worth more than €1m - even when the value of their home is excluded. That is a jump of 10pc in the space of just one year".
The BOI report that the story refers to is "The Wealth of the Nation 2006", which has been reviewed in Geary by the financial decision-making team. David McWilliams mentioned this report in one of his articles last week: "Rich man, poor man divide merely breeds seething society of discontent". This is were the attention on the figures may be stemming from.
The figures are quite stark, as reported in another of today's articles in the Irish Independent: "The top one per cent of the population own 20pc of the wealth. The next four per cent have another 20pc. That leaves 60pc for the remaining 95pc".
With such massive wealth inequality, it may not come as a much of a surprise that, last week, the Irish Independent reported that most Irish people are living beyond their means. See story here. These findings come from the preliminary results for the long awaited Household Budget Survey 2004-05. The Irish Independent says that: "70pc of all households cannot cover their weekly expenditure from their regular income, with only the richest families bucking the trend".
But anyone feeling the pinch should rest assured, as the highest paid banker in the country says that he is "feeling your pain".
The story says there is "a new report from the Bank of Ireland (which) outlined how we (Ireland) now boast the second highest rate of millionaires in the world. Around 33,000 people are worth more than €1m - even when the value of their home is excluded. That is a jump of 10pc in the space of just one year".
The BOI report that the story refers to is "The Wealth of the Nation 2006", which has been reviewed in Geary by the financial decision-making team. David McWilliams mentioned this report in one of his articles last week: "Rich man, poor man divide merely breeds seething society of discontent". This is were the attention on the figures may be stemming from.
The figures are quite stark, as reported in another of today's articles in the Irish Independent: "The top one per cent of the population own 20pc of the wealth. The next four per cent have another 20pc. That leaves 60pc for the remaining 95pc".
With such massive wealth inequality, it may not come as a much of a surprise that, last week, the Irish Independent reported that most Irish people are living beyond their means. See story here. These findings come from the preliminary results for the long awaited Household Budget Survey 2004-05. The Irish Independent says that: "70pc of all households cannot cover their weekly expenditure from their regular income, with only the richest families bucking the trend".
But anyone feeling the pinch should rest assured, as the highest paid banker in the country says that he is "feeling your pain".
Monday, July 30, 2007
What Parts of Microeconomics Are Actually Relevant to Human Behaviour?
Dave mentioned in his last post that when preferences are revealed in the private market (under certain conditions) they provide ample information about willingness to pay, and that when this ocurs, a willingness to pay survey isn't really required.
My first thought was that the willingness to pay survey about car-parking spaces was probably a waste of money. But I'm also quite interested in the conditions for when revealed preferences are deemed to be satisfactorily derived from consumer choice.
Consumer choice is something I was reading about over the weekend, and it strikes me as the element of microeconomic theory that I will get most value out of studying over the next few years. All of the applications that I am being exposed to at the moment revolve around Industrial Organisation, and I must admit that the pricing strategies of commercial enterprises is something that won't continue to engage my intellectual interest to a large extent.
I actually fear that the study of graduate microeconomics currently features a growing emphasis on the field of industrial organisation. Even after the theory of the firm is done, most parts of game theory and information economics are about firm-level behaviour. Certainly, game theory can be said to be at it most realistic when applied to firm behaviour, but it must be remembered that some of us don't want to be specialists in firm-level behaviour.
Consumer choice (or "individual choice" as I am currently preferring to call it) and household behaviour are elements that I hope will be emphasised (or at least equally represented) when I take micro studies at PhD level. I really feel strongly that there is minimal benefit from studying firm theory at the highest level, when one is researching individual and household behaviour. Indeed, one might suggest that in years to come there might be a fragmentation of micro at PhD level, firstly into mezzo (or firm level) micro for graduate students researching Ind Org and Int Trade. And secondly into micro-micro (or individual level micro) for graduate students researching human behaviour, aswell as risk and welfare.
One might suggest that graduate students need to know all the theory before they choose a topic, but surely its reasonable to suggest that by the time a grad student starts year 2 of their studies, they should have an inkling of whether they'll look at firm-level or individual-level behaviour? A bit far-reaching I know, but I think its an important debate.
My first thought was that the willingness to pay survey about car-parking spaces was probably a waste of money. But I'm also quite interested in the conditions for when revealed preferences are deemed to be satisfactorily derived from consumer choice.
Consumer choice is something I was reading about over the weekend, and it strikes me as the element of microeconomic theory that I will get most value out of studying over the next few years. All of the applications that I am being exposed to at the moment revolve around Industrial Organisation, and I must admit that the pricing strategies of commercial enterprises is something that won't continue to engage my intellectual interest to a large extent.
I actually fear that the study of graduate microeconomics currently features a growing emphasis on the field of industrial organisation. Even after the theory of the firm is done, most parts of game theory and information economics are about firm-level behaviour. Certainly, game theory can be said to be at it most realistic when applied to firm behaviour, but it must be remembered that some of us don't want to be specialists in firm-level behaviour.
Consumer choice (or "individual choice" as I am currently preferring to call it) and household behaviour are elements that I hope will be emphasised (or at least equally represented) when I take micro studies at PhD level. I really feel strongly that there is minimal benefit from studying firm theory at the highest level, when one is researching individual and household behaviour. Indeed, one might suggest that in years to come there might be a fragmentation of micro at PhD level, firstly into mezzo (or firm level) micro for graduate students researching Ind Org and Int Trade. And secondly into micro-micro (or individual level micro) for graduate students researching human behaviour, aswell as risk and welfare.
One might suggest that graduate students need to know all the theory before they choose a topic, but surely its reasonable to suggest that by the time a grad student starts year 2 of their studies, they should have an inkling of whether they'll look at firm-level or individual-level behaviour? A bit far-reaching I know, but I think its an important debate.
People predict payment for parking better than payment for pandas
A Willingness To Pay survey for parking spaces (see a post by Martin July 25th) would be expected to perform reasonably well since respondents are likely to be familiar with parking spots; their benefits, which accrue mainly to the consumer; and, since there is already a private market for parking spots, to hold an informed reference price as a guideline. But when these conditions hold a willingness to pay survey isn't really required - preferences revealed in the private market provide ample information to infer the market price for parking spots.
The unique contribution that Willingness to Pay surveys (and other stated preference techniques such as Willingness to Accept and Choice Experiments) make is in putting a money figure on passive-use values, such as the value I receive from the knowledge that there are 1600 pandas in the wild. The fact that the World Wildlife Federation receives significant donations to protect these 1600 bears, which most of us will never get a chance to see, reveals that existence values are manifest as real and important economic preferences. One indication of how great existence values for pandas are is the elaborate nature of the resources that are deployed to attract donations: http://www.chase.com/ccp/index.jsp?pg_name=ccpmapp/card_acquisitions/unsolicited/page/PFSCreditCardDetails&sourcecode=6W72&mkid=6W5L) Policy makers cannot afford to ignore passive-use values.
The trouble is that there is no means of validating the findings of stated preference valuations. We know that the existence values of pandas are at least the amount that has been donated to preserve them, but there are certainly free-riders who derive a benefit from pandas but have never paid to preserve them. Likewise, there are certainly those who use stated preference questionnaires as an opportunity to show their support for pandas by exaggerating the benefit they derive e.g. stating WTP as infinite; or $1,000,000; or possibly $100 - we just don't know.
Because, by definition, existence values are not related to use, they cannot have a direct material impact on the way people live their lives. Pandas becoming extinct would only change my world by making me feel bad. It should come as no surprise then that Stated Preference techniques are predominantly employed in domains where emotions play a very strong role e.g. health, cultural, and environmental economics. Kahneman, Ritov and Schkade (1999) http://www.springerlink.com/content/u232267854514u6m/
argue thoroughly convincingly that dollar responses to questions of existence value are simply attitude expressions applied to some arbitrary money scale. The result they infer from this is that responses are extremely fragile and should not be inferred as a meaningful reflection of the benefit respondents receive.
The unique contribution that Willingness to Pay surveys (and other stated preference techniques such as Willingness to Accept and Choice Experiments) make is in putting a money figure on passive-use values, such as the value I receive from the knowledge that there are 1600 pandas in the wild. The fact that the World Wildlife Federation receives significant donations to protect these 1600 bears, which most of us will never get a chance to see, reveals that existence values are manifest as real and important economic preferences. One indication of how great existence values for pandas are is the elaborate nature of the resources that are deployed to attract donations: http://www.chase.com/ccp/index.jsp?pg_name=ccpmapp/card_acquisitions/unsolicited/page/PFSCreditCardDetails&sourcecode=6W72&mkid=6W5L) Policy makers cannot afford to ignore passive-use values.
The trouble is that there is no means of validating the findings of stated preference valuations. We know that the existence values of pandas are at least the amount that has been donated to preserve them, but there are certainly free-riders who derive a benefit from pandas but have never paid to preserve them. Likewise, there are certainly those who use stated preference questionnaires as an opportunity to show their support for pandas by exaggerating the benefit they derive e.g. stating WTP as infinite; or $1,000,000; or possibly $100 - we just don't know.
Because, by definition, existence values are not related to use, they cannot have a direct material impact on the way people live their lives. Pandas becoming extinct would only change my world by making me feel bad. It should come as no surprise then that Stated Preference techniques are predominantly employed in domains where emotions play a very strong role e.g. health, cultural, and environmental economics. Kahneman, Ritov and Schkade (1999) http://www.springerlink.com/content/u232267854514u6m/
argue thoroughly convincingly that dollar responses to questions of existence value are simply attitude expressions applied to some arbitrary money scale. The result they infer from this is that responses are extremely fragile and should not be inferred as a meaningful reflection of the benefit respondents receive.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
grand challenges in global health
well worth a read for those of you interested in development
http://www.gcgh.org/default.htm
ps am i becoming more blind or does this thing require you to enter the word verification at least twice before letting you in?!
http://www.gcgh.org/default.htm
ps am i becoming more blind or does this thing require you to enter the word verification at least twice before letting you in?!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)